Unlocking your smartphone will be illegal starting next week

[taucherguy]

Just signed. Thanks

You people can rescind this law by signing in at the petition from https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7 before 23rd of February 2013

 

[WorzelGummage]

Some bad news for the USA

This may or may not be news to some but new legislation prevents people in the US from unlocking their phones themselves. It is now against the law to unlock your phone if you want to put in another SIM for use on another network. You can still ask your carrier for an unlock code, but you can't legally do it yourself.

Phone unlocking ban could hit you in the wallet | TechHive

 

[anon(5335877)]

How the **** will carriers know if you are running an unlocked phone? As far as I know, there is no way of telling unless you physically have the phone in your hand.

I don't think they'll know.

Soo... I guess this also means any businesses who do phone unlocking will also become illegal or will be restricted in some way (their websites will be blocked, eBay will remove all of their listings, etc.)?

I think eBay is already removing listings. Basically, instead of suing people who unlock their phones, they'll go after the people who sell phone unlocks because it'd be impractical to sue every single person who unlocks their phone.

So apparently this law applies ONLY to phones that are purchased after January 26th. If you bought your phone before this date, this law doesn't apply to your phone. Still, ******ed law that will never be enforced.

And why is this not front page? Everyone should know this.

I'm sure the DMCA will be enforced. It's just that we're probably not going to get in trouble, the unlocking services are probably going to be the ones paying the fines.

Pffft. Another stupid lobby based law. Ill disreguard this one just like the others. Arrest me.

I agree, the DMCA is stupid. It's so broad that the Library of Congress has to make exceptions every three years. So every three years, blind people have to lobby the Registrar of Copyrights/Library of Congress so that it isn't illegal for them to have their ebooks read to them.

Don't see the issue myself.

If you mortgage a house, the house is not your property until you've paid off the mortgage, you have to ask your mortgage provided for permission to do most things. Same for a contract mobile, until you are out of contract, the phone is still property of the telco. I'm sure if they've subsidied the phone, they don't want you using it on other networks.

And if I buy the phone no commitment from the carrier? Or if I've complete my contract? Problem is, the DMCA doesn't make any distinction between whether I paid full price for the device or whether it was subsidized, and neither does it say anywhere that carriers are obligated to unlock the phone after the contract is up. I could complete a two year contract, ask for a phone unlock, the carrier can say no, and that would be legal.

To add to what HeyCori mentioned in regards to carriers refusing to unlock devices, I have an idea on how to standarize the process, and add a way to force Qualcomm, manufacturers, and CDMA 2000 based carriers to unlock devices:

2. CDMA carriers, manufacturers and Qualcomm must come with a system to allow devices out of contract to be carrier unlocked, and have them listed in a database accessible to all CDMA carriers (listing IMEI, ESN, and MEID related to each device), in similar way as they currently do for lost/stolen devices. Also, GSM carriers must find a way to have devices listed on the lost/stolen database CDMA carriers use.

4. All devices must be global (GSM/CDMA) and must have programmed all frequencies for both radios, as well as the operation and network configurations for every carrier programmed, but defaulted to the carrier where the device is sold (the database should be ready and online by the time the changes are implemented). Featured phones must be global as well.

Are CDMA phones locked? I don't think they are. I always thought that the problem was that CDMA carriers would refuse to activate phones that weren't sold by them even if it supports the proper bands for their network.

And I don't like forcing devices to be global. It'd add to the cost of the device when maybe someone doesn't need a global device.

 

[Microsoftjunkie]

If you're on Tmobile, they usually unlock their phones after 45 days with no current balance. I've always got mine unlocked this way.

 

[squire777]

If it is illegal to unlock phones then it is only fair that phones bought at full price should be unlocked automatically without paying extra, or having to jump through any hoops.

 

[Villain]

send em up to me and Ill unlock em... eh


at the same time the U.S. is getting strict on unlocking the canadian gov is forcing providers to give unlock codes (a lot more details in the matter and still changing)

 

[tgp]

Here's what I don't understand: if I buy the phone subsidized by signing a contract, the carrier will get their money back either by me paying them for service for 2 years or by charging me an ETF if I leave early. I realize that they don't want me going to another carrier even if they get reimbursed for the phone, but competition is part of the free market. I also realize that initially the phone is not mine, but after I pay for 2 years of service or pay the ETF plus whatever other fees they might charge me, it's mine. Once I sign on the dotted line, I will be paying for that phone one way or another. I guess I fail to see how someone can even screw the carrier, phone locked or unlocked.

 

[anon(5335877)]

Here's what I don't understand: if I buy the phone subsidized by signing a contract, the carrier will get their money back either by me paying them for service for 2 years or by charging me an ETF if I leave early. I realize that they don't want me going to another carrier even if they get reimbursed for the phone, but competition is part of the free market. I also realize that initially the phone is not mine, but after I pay for 2 years of service or pay the ETF plus whatever other fees they might charge me, it's mine. Once I sign on the dotted line, I will be paying for that phone one way or another. I guess I fail to see how someone can even screw the carrier, phone locked or unlocked.

Basically the CTIA said that carriers are losing money due to "large scale phone trafficking operations" where people "buy large quantities of pre-paid phones, unlock them, and resell them in foreign markets where carriers do not subsidize handsets."

So basically they're protecting the carriers and not us. Useless government.

This is misuse of the DMCA. The DMCA was created to protect creative works, not to protect wireless carriers' business.

 

[thed]

Basically the CTIA said that carriers are losing money due to "large scale phone trafficking operations" where people "buy large quantities of pre-paid phones, unlock them, and resell them in foreign markets where carriers do not subsidize handsets."

So basically they're protecting the carriers and not us. Useless government.

This is misuse of the DMCA. The DMCA was created to protect creative works, not to protect wireless carriers' business.

I really don't understand this either. Why exactly would the carriers be losing money? Do they not charge enough for their prepaid phones? If so, then that's their own fault. Charge enough for the phone to cover your costs and then you wouldn't have to worry about "trafficking operations."

Using a loss leader is always risky business, no matter what product you're selling. Why should the government be propping up risky business practices?

But the reality is that logic has no place here. It all boils down to companies using lobbying money to buy the privilege to write their own legislation.

 

[palandri]

I really don't understand this either. Why exactly would the carriers be losing money? Do they not charge enough for their prepaid phones? If so, then that's their own fault. Charge enough for the phone to cover your costs and then you wouldn't have to worry about "trafficking operations."

Using a loss leader is always risky business, no matter what product you're selling. Why should the government be propping up risky business practices?

But the reality is that logic has no place here. It all boils down to companies using lobbying money to buy the privilege to write their own legislation.

You're spot on!

 

[vpop]

A White House petition to make unlocking cell phones legal again has passed 1 lakh signature . Passing the milestone means the U.S. government has to issue an official response. On January 26th, unlocking a cell phone that is under contract became illegal in the U.S Just before that went into effect , a petition was started at whitehouse.gov https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7 to have the Librarian of Congress revisit that decision. 'It reduces consumer choice, and decreases the resale value of devices that consumers have paid for in full. The Librarian noted that carriers are offering more unlocked phones at present, but the great majority of phones sold are still locked,this can be done using any third party vendors .i have come across a site called Unlock-free.com ... where unlock codes can be obtained for free for most of the basic models but this is not applicable for smart phones .The policy is a big issue for anyone who wants to use their phone abroad, without needing to go through their U.S.' carrier's expensive roaming and international plans. Additionally, anyone who wants to move to a new GSM carrier in the U.S. (such as T-Mobile to AT&T), will have issues. any how lets wait for a positive response from the government..